Good-Flavored Evil?

[M.L. Martin]

They're normally animated by negative energy. There was a 2e mention of some mummies being animated by positive energy, which was largely a cut and paste from a 1e mummy writeup from back really before undead had been defined by their link to negative energy.

Yes, but Van Richten's Guide to the Ancient Dead took it and ran with it. Made them cool and distinctive, too.

Granted, 3E's brought mummies into conformity with all other undead, but you could still get some mileage out of the 2E idea.

 

[Arin]

Actually If you look at the special edition 3.5 phb, with the errata incorporated, you will see that detect evil now reads "Evil Undead" rather than just "Undead".

For the record, I will post my standard disclaimer on undeath and evil:
Most undead are evil, although intelligent undead can change.
Mindless creatures cannot have an alignment, and thus skeletons and zombies were neutral in 3.0, but they changed it in 3.5 for ease of smiting and similar spells. They DO NOT attempt to pervert their orders to evil ends, nor do they go on killing sprees if left without orders.
Negative energy is not evil. Spells that directly channel it like enervation are not evil spells, nor does the plane have the evil dominant trait, nor do its native creatures have the evil sub type.
Spells that create or animate undead are usually (evil). Nowhere in the core books does it say that casting an evil spells is an evil act, merely that clerics cannot cast spells directly opposed to their god. It seems like an ok interpretation at first glance, but if you follow it to the logical conclusion it means that a character can actually control their alignment by acting however they feel like and then adjusting their alignment by sitting in an empty room casting spells with an alignment descriptor.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Do you think my Mr. Wonderful McShiney can adventure alongside my Mummy Truenamer?

Sure, provided your mummy isn't actually Evil-aligned.

Do paladins have to Smite Evil at every opportunity, or is it feasible for them to work with Evil characters, providing they don't to anything nasty? I'm thinking of Spiderman having to team up with Venom in order for both of them to over come a greater evil: Carnage...

Paladins get a bit sticky, because they're forbidden to associate with evil as per their Code. Most Good-aligned characters have no problems with it by, by the RAW, Paladins do.

Specifically, Mummies in the MM are "usually" LE. As an exceptional mummy (and you certainly would be), you'd be within the rules to change yourself to any alignment you'd like, including non-evil alignments.

By the RAW, it can work. And I think it'd be pretty sweet.

But it's also a quick and easy house rule to, say, change the Paladin's code slightly in the campaign, if your DM's amenable.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I'm planning on running "The Quicksilver Hourglass" (Dungeon 123) as a one-off epic game...

I'm pregenerating the characters for it. I've got some cool ideas...

My habit of playing with weird characters kicked in, and a character I'd like to have in is a Good-Aligned Mummy Truenamer. Because, of all undead (Not counting Deathless) Mummies are most likly to be good-aligned, and I personally think that Truenamers fit in quite well with Egyptian type mysticism... If only in flavor rather than accuracy.

However, this may cause problems with the party's leader: Mr. Wonderful McShiney Epic Paladin of ultimate Goddie-two-shoeiness.

Is this paladin an exalted character? If yes, what kind? If no, what is his personal ethos?

Creating undead is an evil act, can't dispute that.

It is in dispute. Archliches and baelnorn are good aligned beings, created often with good intent. Although Negative Energy was used, Negative Energy is not necessarily evil in itself (unless you rule it so.)

But if the undead itself is not evil, is allowing it's continued existence an evil act?

The Book of Exalted Deeds argued that life, allowing life, and promoting life were good things. Pity, mercy, and understanding were good things. I doubt killing anything unneccesarily would be a very good act, in the eyes of the BOED.

Come to think of it, with the introduction of deathless, (Either Ebberron or BoED) is the creation of a Good-Aligned undead an evil act?

The BOED would say it is not an evil act.
Then again, the campaign could be set in a Ravenloft type setting. In Ravenloft, you can't create good undead, or if you somehow do they don't stay good for very long.

Do you think my Mr. Wonderful McShiney can adventure alongside my Mummy Truenamer?

The rules do not prohibit it, as far as I know. In 1E and 2E, paladins could work with neutrals for brief periods, and good characters indefinitely. The paladin might not be comfortable with said mummy, but might grit his teeth and work with it.
An exalted paladin? Yes, he would work with your mummy. But beware ... he'll probably convince the local NPC cleric to have your character raised from the dead ...

Do paladins have to Smite Evil at every opportunity, or is it feasible for them to work with Evil characters, providing they don't to anything nasty? I'm thinking of Spiderman having to team up with Venom in order for both of them to over come a greater evil: Carnage...

An exalted paladin could work with an evil character, but would inevitably imprison said character for his own good, 'have a talk' with him (save after 7 days or become neutral, save after another 7 days or become good.)

A non-exalted paladin?

Ask yourself this question ...

My evil character (based on an actual character of mine) decides he need not pay the merchant for the goods purchased. He tortures and kills the merchant instead. Then sets fire to the shop for the fun of it.
Now, your paladin knows of this ... he knows my evil character committed this act a while back, enjoyed every part of it, and would (and will) do it again at the first convenient opportunity.

Your paladin still want to work with my evil character?

He does?

That's unfortunate. Because once my evil character learns that your paladin is on a good and holy quest, my evil character will work with your paladin ... and sabotage his mission at just the right moment to cause the greatest devastation and wreckage, all for the greater glory and magnificence of evil.
When your paladin, in despair and disgrace, tries for repentance, my character in disguise works to turn his efforts into another disaster for everyone. After all, if I can create a new death knight, more kudos to my evil character!

But, but ... you mean, when you talk about evil, you're just talking about merely naughty folk, not truly henious and vile folk? As in, say, a mere thief who is evil because he steals and enjoys stealing, but doesn't hurt anyone directly (he threatens to, but never does) ?

I'd call that thief neutral. Evil is something special (and horrific) not mundane.
In cases like that, as a DM I'd let your paladin adventure with said 'evil person' all he wanted.

So yeah, the paladin and the mummy could adventure together in my game.

TALK WITH THE PLAYER of the paladin, make an agreement of cooperation OOC before the start (so the fun of the game is protected) and ... party on.

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith

 

[avigor]

Uh... How would you qualify someone pushing a lawful or chaotic agenda? And if your chaotic people are about how the ends are more important than the means, won't they fall into the evil trap that is thinking the ends justify the means? ("Here, I saved your child from the flames." "You tossed him out the window! Why couldn't you carry him down? He's dead!" "Maybe, but not in the blaze, so don't complain. And if I had carried him, then I couldn't have looted all that stuff before it burned.")

Nah, I don't agree. In fact, I'd more easily see the reverse.

The goal shouldn't be "save the kid from the flames; other dangers be damned." It should be "save the kid from danger." i.e., you wouldn't be throwing him from the flames to a three-story drop, as that would simply change his danger. You would want to remove all danger that you are aware of. Only a stupid hero (int and wis of less than 6) would throw a kid out of a window to save him.

Most of the difference between law and chaos would be things like lifestyle rules and being honor-bound to avoid certain methods like torture, stealth, poison, or refusing to even tolerate the presence of a cleric of a different/evil god, etc. Chaotics would not be afraid to hit villains below the belt, and wouldn't feel honor-bound to kill every evil thing they meet, only the ones that are a threat, or to commit suicide by taking on a dragon to save a village if they wouldn't make a difference. In that dragon example, if fighting it would give the villagers a chance to escape, a chaotic good might just do it, but if he wouldn't even slow it down he wouldn't act "lawful stupid" and kill himself; he'd live to fight and gain vengeance against that dragon 5-10 or so levels later.

The "the ends justify the means" approach would be a vigilante who doesn't mind torturing the bad guy to get the info that saves 10,000 lives or whatever. Yes, it could be utilized to drive someone to evil actions, but even chaotic goods would have some rules, like don't hurt others just because you want to (have a good reason), try to help as many as possible, etc. Think more Kantian vs. Utilitarian ethics; lawful likes a bunch of rules detailing what to do, while chaotic does whatever method gives the best result.



Make it the reverse? Huh? That would mean that lawful good wants to help people and chaotic good wants to hurt people. That sounds like the opposite to me. Good wants to help people. That's there intent. Lawful people follow rules about how they stop evil, while chaotic doesn't follow such rules, just stopping evil by whatever means are necessary.

Doing good when not antagonized by a villain wouldn't differ that much. One major difference would be their approach to legislation and beuracracy. Lawfuls would work with the existing system, trying to use established methods of changing it, prefereably without any violence at all. Chaotics would get fed up with it and try to get people to demand immediate change, without waiting for the paperwork. They'd be more likely to start a revolution, but even then they'd normally wait until absolutely neccessary.



Evil, I think, falls under the following:

Hurting Others: Unless you're hurting one for the good of many (torturing or killing a villain, for example), hurting others is always an evil act. In the case of torture and such, it's questionable, especially if it's avoidable. Reasons for this type of evil would be:
Willful Ignorance: This includes justifying hurting someone with BS explainations (justifying slavery with the bible, for instance), refusing to admit to yourself that you're hurting people and not helping them, etc. A lot of these actually think that they're good.
Apathy: Simply not caring that you're hurting others. You want to help yourself, and you don't care if you hurt others on the way.
Sadism: Hurting people just because you want to see them suffer.

Entropy Acceleration: Demons or whatever that want nothing less than the complete annihilation of all that exists. Unless they succeed, they'll keep trying until they die. The demons in the Warcraft universe are completely this kind of evil.

Greed would only be truely evil if combined with hurting others; taking something that belongs to noone, and that noone needs, itsn't evil. Taking something that, as far as you know, isn't owned by someone, and isn't needed by anyone else, wouldn't be evil as long as you apologized etc if you found out later that it was. Hurting someone to help yourself, and only yourself, would be evil, but hurting someone while helping a larger number of people, possibly including yourself, wouldn't necessarily be evil (although it might be chaotic, depending on circumstances). Taking an evil dragon's treasure hoard and giving at least some to others wouldn't be evil in an of itself, especially if you killed the dragon first so it couldn't retaliate against the local populace. Stealing a neutral artifact from an evil villain so he can't hurt people with it, and then choosing to keep it, wouldn't be evil as long as there were no original owners or they told you to keep it, and you didn't hurt people with it.